Is President Obama's proposed executive action on illegal immigrants an abuse of power?

[JesterX]

@Shodan

Why didn’t he just issue the executive order then?

Regards,
Shodan

He was still under the misguided belief that republicans would deal with him in good faith. He knows better now.

[Donald_Rump]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

And to add insult to injury, he could add: “I don’t want to do this, but congress is not doing their job - all they have to do is pass a law capping income tax at 10% of gross income and I’ll gladly rescind this executive order”.

Argued on Slate:

The president is not acting contrary to any statutory mandate. Nothing in the president’s action sets a precedent for unbridled executive action (as Marty Lederman sets out in a post for Balkinization). To note one example, although a president can cut back on enforcement of tax laws, no president can relieve any one American of a statutory obligation to pay taxes. The next president can come collecting—and interest and penalties will be accruing until he or she does. In this case, the full amount of funds for deportation will continue to be spent in accord with enforcement priorities set by Homeland Security that are fully within the discretion conferred by acts of Congress. The scope of the relief is comparable to that granted without significant controversy by the first President Bush to 1.5 million undocumented aliens.

I don’t know whether this passes muster legally, but maybe a lawyer can weigh in.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Interesting, I think Obama’s waiver of the ACA employer mandate for 2014 was also only a non-collection of the penalty. Makes you wonder whether a future president can come along and collect the tax for 2014.

[Donald_Rump]

If waiving the ACA employer mandate for 2014 was a non-collection of the penalty, then I guess he wasn’t “rewriting” the law after all.

[dba_Fred]

@dba_Fred

I’m still mad at the Republicans for preventing President Obama from doing anything legislatively concerning immigration when the Democrats controlled Congress in 2009 & 2010. <clipped>

@Shodan

Why didn’t he just issue the executive order then?

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan, you did understand I said that with tongue in cheek (my cheek, not yours), right?

[doorhinge]

@JesterX

Of course it doesn’t settle the issue but it’s the result of republican recalcitrance. Republicans have a well established pattern of not dealing with Obama until they HAVE to.

Obama will be gone soon. Many members of Congress will be there for a long time. Congress has to relearn the art of compromise or they’ll be forced to look for honest work.

It’s apparent that the voters are losing interest in keeping up the hateful rhetoric and are, once again, choosing representative who will actually represent their constituents. If Senator A and Congressman B can’t get the job done, it’s time for Senator C and Congressman D.

[JesterX]

@doorhinge

Obama will be gone soon. Many members of Congress will be there for a long time. Congress has to relearn the art of compromise or they’ll be forced to look for honest work.

It’s apparent that the voters are losing interest in keeping up the hateful rhetoric and are, once again, choosing representative who will actually represent their constituents. If Senator A and Congressman B can’t get the job done, it’s time for Senator C and Congressman D.

How is “apparent”? It seems to me the voters chose the candidates with the most hateful rhetoric against Obama. I didn’t see one winning candidate who ever campaigned on working with him.

[doorhinge]

@JesterX

How is “apparent”? It seems to me the voters chose the candidates with the most hateful rhetoric against Obama. I didn’t see one winning candidate who ever campaigned on working with him.

Have you seen Congress’s ratings?

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that not one winning candidate campaigned on working with Obama. What does that tell you? That Obama’s policies are a lot more unpopular than you think they should be? That the voters did not agree with your assessment of how they should vote? That the voters chose who should represent them and the voters chose not to vote for a whole lot of Democrats?

[Tread]

@BrainGlutton

True . . . You know, I don’t like the phrase “illegal immigrants” because people are not illegal. OTOH, I don’t like “undocumented immigrants” because that implies they just .

Why can’t people be illegal?

It is an adjective, so it describes a noun.

Of course there are many definitions,

one common is : unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law.

It seems to me they are not authorized by law to be here, they are in fact prohibited

so I don’t see where illegal is used wrong…

Would you prefer Criminal Immigrant?

[JesterX]

@doorhinge

Have you seen Congress’s ratings?

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that not one winning candidate campaigned on working with Obama. What does that tell you? That Obama’s policies are a lot more unpopular than you think they should be? That the voters did not agree with your assessment of how they should vote? That the voters chose who should represent them and the voters chose not to vote for a whole lot of Democrats?

So . . . If the hateful rhetoric is against OBAMA, it’s not really hateful rhetoric? The post I replied to, you said voters were getting tired of the hateful rhetoric. I point out all of it that was directed towards Obama and NOW you say they were just representing their constituents?

What it tells me is that republicans are of full of it (I’ve actually always known that, but it’s at least further evidence).

[doorhinge]

@JesterX

So . . . If the hateful rhetoric is against OBAMA, it’s not really hateful rhetoric? The post I replied to, you said voters were getting tired of the hateful rhetoric. I point out all of it that was directed towards Obama and NOW you say they were just representing their constituents?

What it tells me is that republicans are of full of it (I’ve actually always known that, but it’s at least further evidence).

It’s your assessment that all of it (the hateful rhetoric) was directed towards Obama. That might be why you’re confused? There’s plenty of hateful rhetoric from all sides of the aisle.

[JesterX]

@doorhinge

It’s your assessment that all of it (the hateful rhetoric) was directed towards Obama. That might be why you’re confused? There’s plenty of hateful rhetoric from all sides of the aisle.

I didn’t say all of the hateful rhetoric was directed towards Obama. What I said was that voters elected republicans EVEN WITH all the hateful rhetoric they directed at Obama. So your assessment that voters are tired of hateful rhetoric, in general, is in error. It’s essentially what won republicans the elections of 2014.

[Magiver]

@elucidator

So, he then goes on to say “But screw those blue-collar American workers, just get those illegals to the voting booth as quick as we can and we don’t need their sorry asses!”?

Or he might have gone on to suggest that recognizing that potential problem is needful, solutions can be found and he is committed to finding them.

Your excerpt offers us no guidance on that.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa.

They’re not my words, they’re his. Word for word. And it wasn’t like he wandered off the teleprompter reservation, he’s repeated them.

[Magiver]

@JesterX

He was still under the misguided belief that republicans would deal with him in good faith. He knows better now.

Wooshed right by you.

[JesterX]

@Magiver

Wooshed right by you.

Uhm, whatever THAT means.

Conservatives have a slight grip on reality as it is. So I wouldn’t want to risk pushing you over by asking you to explain that. Carry on.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@JesterX

Uhm, whatever THAT means.

Conservatives have a slight grip on reality as it is. So I wouldn’t want to risk pushing you over by asking you to explain that. Carry on.

That’s enough of that. JesterX, you can’t just slam a group like that. Insults are prohibited in Great Debates. In addition, you compounded the problem by personalizing it in your third sentence. This is a warning for insults. Please don’t do it again.

[JesterX]

@Jonathan_Chance

That’s enough of that. JesterX, you can’t just slam a group like that. Insults are prohibited in Great Debates. In addition, you compounded the problem by personalizing it in your third sentence. This is a warning for insults. Please don’t do it again.

Wait, how is a one sentence, drive-by, post saying “wooshed right by you” NOT an insult?

In my mind I was responding in kind.

[Some_Call_Me.Tim]

@Smitty

Yes. Even Obama himself has said so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-on-telemundo-rules-out-freezing-deportations-of-most-illegal-immigrants/2013/09/17/d99f2c08-1fb2-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html

This action, in his own words, “would be ignoring the law in a way that would be very difficult to defend legally,” and “not an option.”

But that is pretty typical of him. Ignore what we said yesterday. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

So, in your cite: “President Obama on Tuesday ruled out using his executive authority to freeze deportations for most of the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, saying such a move would violate federal law.”

Later, he uses Executive Action to freeze deportations of up to a total of 5 million people in the US illegally.

Where exactly do you find a contradiction between those two statements? Last I checked, 5 million is not a majority of 11 million.

[John_Mace]

@Some_Call_Me.Tim

So, in your cite: “President Obama on Tuesday ruled out using his executive authority to freeze deportations for most of the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, saying such a move would violate federal law.”

Later, he uses Executive Action to freeze deportations of up to a total of 5 million people in the US illegally.

Where exactly do you find a contradiction between those two statements? Last I checked, 5 million is not a majority of 11 million.

Freezing deportations of 6.6M would violate federal law, but freezing deportations of 5M does not? Can you explain why?

And I notice you ignored this part:

Obama defended his decision last summer to defer the deportations of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the country illegally by their parents as children. The legal rationale in that case, he said, was to allow federal agencies to devote more time and resources to high-priority immigration cases such as those involving people with multiple criminal convictions.

But he said that expanding that deferment program beyond the young people it now covers “would be ignoring the law in a way that would be very difficult to defend legally.”

5M > 100s of thousands

[John_Mace]

Missed the edit window…

I don’t think this action is substantively different from what most other presidents have done, but let’s not pretend for a second that Obama isn’t taking a stand now that is contrary to what he’s said in the past.